Waiting for the MAFIAA to release a comment stating that they will fight this.

Understatement of the year. Look, Zombie Walt Disney himself will rise from his grave in California and march across the country to Washington DC, laying havoc to everything in his wake, to finally storm the gates of Congress and personally burn every shred of this proposal. Some say with a missile no less.

Waiting for the MAFIAA to release a comment stating that they will fight this.

I wonder if they actually will. I know they abandoned suing individual infringers specifically because the damages that were being charged were obscene and did nothing but make the rightsholders look even worse, so it's possible they'd be in favor of a legal distinction that would prevent those sorts of absurd results from being possible.

Then again, they aren't exactly the model of brilliance so I'm guessing they'll fight it anyways.

I might have a shred of sympathy for the content industry if copyright terms were reasonable.

If you think about it, everything created during someone's life is effectively copyrighted forever because the terms are so long they outlive us.

Well, assuming the creator lived around the same time as you.

This is also why I plan on a limited release of my IP (assuming I do in fact monetize it) after several years. Basically, you can keep it for yourself, free. You can share with anyone, free. You cannot try to take my IP and make a profit from it. Along with this, I would obviously still make paid copies readily available. (I'm writing a novel. If successful, the electronic version will be free to download/share after 5-10 years.)

[quote="[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30544981#p30544981]rabish12I know they abandoned suing individual infringers specifically because the damages that were being charged were obscene and did nothing but make the rightsholders look even worse, so it's possible they'd be in favor of a legal distinction that would prevent those sorts of absurd results from being possible.[/quote]

Only the RIAA. The MPAA still has some members who are pursuing such things, for downloading even. Witness the production companies for movies like Hurt Locker, Expendables, and Dallas Buyers Club. All tried to (and did) collect settlements on the order of $7-8000 for simple downloading of their titles.

I've pretty much forbidden anyone in my immediate family to see those movies based on that.

I might have a shred of sympathy for the content industry if copyright terms were reasonable.

If you think about it, everything created during someone's life is effectively copyrighted forever because the terms are so long they outlive us.

Well, that would fall under the category of 'minimal commercial value'. A song from 1985 is pretty much getting only nominal royalty value and thus is completely different from the latest 'hit' from the aforementioned Justin Bieber (regardless of what we may personally think of the value...) These would fall towards the lower end of the scale.

As for what was mentioned about copyright notice, anyone else see the glaring catch-22?

Quote:

The existence of a copyright notice should remain a factor for the court to consider when determining whether to reduce the damages award, since it may bear on the defendant’s state of mind. If a defendant asserts that he was not aware of and had no reason to believe that the work was protected by copyright, the existence of a copyright notice would tend to undermine that claim. But if a defendant mistakenly believed that he was engaging in a fair use, the notice would not undermine that defense.

It is impossible to actually see the copyright notice for most downloaders (excluding Popcorn-time type streaming P2P) since you have to violate the copyright by downloading it before you actually watch the movie (and see the copyright warnings). In addition, I have yet to see a single TV show or movie which actually leaves the copyright notices intact (in fact, NONE of the TV shows ever show copyright even when watching live...)

As such, I don't really hold much hope in any of this work by the industrious Commerce Dept actually going anywhere. Too full of holes, and of course, the MPAA/RIAA will shoot it full of many more.

What this copy write committee stuff doesn't realize is that DRM is to blame for alot of pirates on the interweb. And the prices charged for stuff. Apple is king for this. They had DRM on muisc files. Only thing that could be done with what we paid for was use it in iTunes or an apple product. They finally got the hint to get rid of DRM on muisc files as there wére ways around it. And thus prices increased ok cool. i dont have a problem paying for someones "art" But they still have DRM on movies and TV shows. I'm sorry but $20-25 for HD videos and 15-20 dollars for SD 2-2.50 a TV show with DRM. only being able to use that on an Apple product is rediulous. Digital content with DRM you pay for yes but don't own. Amazon does it with books Google too then the flip side too is that a physical copy of the same movies on blu ray is about the same price. You can let a friend borrow a blu ray disk or DVD. Is that sharng? Yes. Is that copy write violations? no. Ilegally we are allowed to make one physocal backup per dvd/blu ray. is burning a CD of your friends or ripping it to your itunes library pirating? no. These movie and music labels are just pissed they are losing revenue on a much larger scale than me ripping a friends CD or borrowing a DVD from his collection. They are pissed that we have found ways to bypass the system. The other thing too is that a digital copy of anything book muisc movie should not cost retail of a physical copy. With such limitations on the file we paid for the cost of digital media should not be so high. I understand people need to get paid for thier work I have no problem with that. But get rid of the limitations on digital media. And I bet the piracy will dwindle. No it won't go away but decrease significantly. Their should be like a digital download code that comes with phyiscal media. Yes there is vudu and others like it but thier system sucks. And is horrible UI trying to redeem codes with VUDU is just horrendous and again have to use their services and apps which are horrible. The digital download code should be a DRM FREE file of a common file type. MP4 .epub or .mp3 or let us choose the file type upon download. Some prefer .flac or aac or mkv or avi and let us be able to put that file on what ever device we want. Thus piracy dewindles.

What this copy write committee stuff doesn't realize is that DRM is to blame for alot of pirates on the interwebs....

These guidelines aren't intended to "fix" piracy, nothing will ever eliminate piracy. There are people and companies that have done the "right" thing and addressed all the common piracy excuses: They've released it DRM-free and in multiple formats, and even sometimes pay-what-you-want, and the content still gets pirated.

It is a pragmatic look at the current state of piracy: that it's no longer criminal organizations pressing/printing large volumes of pirated material for large profits, but individuals sharing files for free. They should still be discouraged from pirating, but sharing a few MP3s isn't justification for millions in fines.

It seems like the Obama bunch are finally getting to work in the sense of working for the people and not against them. Better late than never. Many the timing has to do with no longer having to make deals to get bills passed.

In case you are wondering why there is a delay in getting a response from the MPAA and RIAA (MAFIAA), they are searching for all the "tooth"s (teeth) and nails they can find... as well as calling up their employees holding office in congress.

I guess they're trying to back off because they know how ridiculous things have got, but they're just backing off enough so that people don't get riled up enough to push for change. The real problems are way deeper, and this does nothing to address them, it just reduces the likelihood of negative headlines.

If I ripped and shared "I, Frankenstein", I'm sure Lionsgate would demand the full $150k penalty. Anyone who saw it, however, would say that Lionsgate should pay *me*, if sharing it got someone to watch it.

Come to think of it, though, maybe they'd just as soon it was forgotten as quickly as possible.

If I ripped and shared "I, Frankenstein", I'm sure Lionsgate would demand the full $150k penalty. Anyone who saw it, however, would say that Lionsgate should pay *me*, if sharing it got someone to watch it.

No, they'd charge you for "damaging their brand". That person would never patronize any of their films again.

Waiting for the MAFIAA to release a comment stating that they will fight this.

I wonder if they actually will. I know they abandoned suing individual infringers specifically because the damages that were being charged were obscene and did nothing but make the rightsholders look even worse, so it's possible they'd be in favor of a legal distinction that would prevent those sorts of absurd results from being possible.

Then again, they aren't exactly the model of brilliance so I'm guessing they'll fight it anyways.

This proposal appears reasonable, so they'll probably fight it reflexively, and hard.

What this copy write committee stuff doesn't realize is that DRM is to blame for alot of pirates on the interwebs....

These guidelines aren't intended to "fix" piracy, nothing will ever eliminate piracy. There are people and companies that have done the "right" thing and addressed all the common piracy excuses: They've released it DRM-free and in multiple formats, and even sometimes pay-what-you-want, and the content still gets pirated.

You say that but yet...

Video Games - still pay $60 for a new video game that we download digitally, cannot return, cannot trade, and get literally nothing physical for it. It's been the same price for a new video game since the start of the "steam revolution." The lack of trading, returning, renting helps keep those prices over-inflated (as, you either buy new, go pirate, or pound sand until it's cheaper). GTA V is a great example of that type of crap. Don't even get me started on DLC and $60 "Season Passes" which once were a single, large expansion pack for $30 released a year or two later. And DRM-free games? Virtually non-existent.

Music, Movies & TV Shows - They've come a long ways on this, sure. But, I'm still paying near-DVD/BD prices for a new movie despite the fact that there's also no actual physical cost here either. And most services are rental-based--Amazon Prime, Spotify, Hulu, etc. where you don't actually own anything, you're just paying for the privilege of getting to enjoy their content--so long as you keep ponying up. Also, Netflix and other streaming services still utilize DRM.

Cable - They've also tried to bridge the gap here--many cable providers allow watching through the internet on a PC or other device, and even more cable channels provide their own streaming service that you log into using your cable subscription. Sounds great, but this still forces people to buy cable packages they don't want. And that's been a problem for a long time (thank the FCC for taking the first notable steps on changing this paradigm a bit).

No doubt that there will always be pirating, even if they literally give it away for free it will still show up on trackers. But let us not excuse the utter bullshit that has panned out in the past 30 years at the expense of the consumer as products and services have transitioned to digital.

Recovery for an illegal download of any copyrighted for non-commercial use needs to be limited to the retail cost of the copied material. No legal fees allowed. Sort of like paying a parking ticket. Ah, there is going to be a rant below. I did not intend it; but it is there.

Screw the penalties that "put the fear of God (i.e., content providers and their predatory enforcers)" into citizens. The content providers are already extracting outrageous prices through various zero cost to providers greed. Like it is a 50% more expensive disk if they enable one of the existing sound tracks on the Blu-ray. Which costs the creators nothing whatsoever. And then there is resolution, color range, UHD, to allow you to see the color green , and other equally stupid costs that are pure graft on the part of the content providers. And then there is the need to buy new equipment every time the content providers decide it is time for a new onerous copy protection protocol, which has to be built into every damn thing we buy. Vastly complicating every system used by a paying consumer. There is no significant cost to the vendor/creator! Who mostly produce obscene payments to stars and content executives, and the ever popular shareholders.

Our economic system is seriously rewarding money extraction from the public with no cost of goods. In other times this would simply be labeled as stealing. Consider the cable companies (the plural there may soon be eliminated the way things are going). We have given corporations the attributes of government (what are your actual "useful and viable" alternatives to PayPal, banks, and may other services). Our government is controlled by corporations, crazy billionaires with something up their ass, and the lobbying and election "donations". Corporations make "laws" that we have to adhere to to get service (for which they can be an effective single source) part of an ongoing move to restrict freedom of choice and nullify laws that are intended to protect us from the abuse. Contract law has usurped government laws.

This is not how the Founding Fathers intended it to work! We the people are being screwed in so may ways with the support of the "system".

Think energy, Ethanol (costs more to produce it than it provides in energy), modern nukes dismissed (but it is a safe economic alternative - the only real utility grade non-polluting energy source). Perpetuating coal (way more dangerous than nukes - air pollution, mining, ecological disasters, global warming), oil (because it makes a lot of money for some), subsidies for stupid higher cost "renewable energy".

Only other acceptable use: "Give me a minute so I can nuke this slice of pizza." "Let me stick this in the nuker" (The irony of the misinformation on microwaves that led to this term is not lost on me).

Minimal Commercial Value - its a lovely euphemism for porn.The largest number of copyright cases are coming out of 1 firm mainly for 1 client who makes porn.The idea that a 10 minute porno could qualify for $150,000 offends Hollywood, who are also pissed that they aren't raking in the cash this 1 porn house is making from the evil evil downloaders. It is one thing to threaten an accused downloader with their neighbors knowing they allegedly downloaded the latest Uwe Bolle "film" and entirely another to use the title "Barely Legal Loitias in Chains". Which one do you think gets the better settlement rate?

"(1)The plaintiff’s revenues lost and the difficulty of proving damages."Yet they have no problem screaming to Congress & the media about the hundreds of billions they are losing. They have no actual evidence to support these claims that serve as the basis for these laws, yet can not understand that people see the doomsaying that isn't true leads to more contempt for them.

It isn't a popular idea but non-commercial infringement needs to be capped at something reasonable.Timmy downloads an episode of Game of Thrones, HBO wants to claim that he cost them 100 Million, because they take the revenue they imagine they lost and then multiply it by each other person who also downloaded it. They want to extract as much of that imagined number as they can to deter Timmy & others, ignoring that the actual cost of Timmys download is at best what the episode could have been purchased for. If the "win" was capped at 2x retail of what the episode sells for, it would punish the downloader and also encourage HBO to work on getting the material to consumers rather than trying to find more laws to lock it away harder that in the end won't solve a problem caused by ignoring consumer demand.

The numbers thrown around help justify a broken business model that forgot the job is giving consumers what they want. Buy the content legally and get locked into 10 minutes of forced ads, warnings not to make copies, and no control over what you paid for. You can only watch it how, where, when they let you and sometimes they can cut off your access because they said so.

If they worked as hard at getting the content to customers willing to pay them as they have at chasing the imaginary dollars we'd have much better access & they would make more money.

They figured since nobody can actually pay the astronomical sum they are asking. They figure maybe if we reform it, we can actually get small money from lots of lawsuits. Instead of no money from insane lawsuits.

Recovery for an illegal download of any copyrighted for non-commercial use needs to be limited to the retail cost of the copied material. No legal fees allowed. Sort of like paying a parking ticket. Ah, there is going to be a rant below. I did not intend it; but it is there.

Screw the penalties that "put the fear of God (i.e., content providers and their predatory enforcers)" into citizens. The content providers are already extracting outrageous prices through various zero cost to providers greed. Like it is a 50% more expensive disk if they enable one of the existing sound tracks on the Blu-ray. Which costs the creators nothing whatsoever. And then there is resolution, color range, UHD, to allow you to see the color green , and other equally stupid costs that are pure graft on the part of the content providers. And then there is the need to buy new equipment every time the content providers decide it is time for a new onerous copy protection protocol, which has to be built into every damn thing we buy. Vastly complicating every system used by a paying consumer. There is no significant cost to the vendor/creator! Who mostly produce obscene payments to stars and content executives, and the ever popular shareholders.

our economic system is seriously rewarding money extraction from the public with no cost of goods. in other times this would simply be labeled as stealing. Consider the cable companies (the plural there may soon be eliminated the way things are going). We have given corporations the attributes of government (what are your actual "useful and viable" alternatives to PayPal, banks, and may other services). Our government is controlled by corporations, crazy billionaires with something up their ass, and the lobbying and election "donations". Corporations make "laws" that we have to adhere to to get service (for which they can be an effective single source) part of an ongoing move to restrict freedom of choice and nullify laws that are intended to protect us from the abuse. Contract law has usurped government laws.

This is not how the Founding Fathers intended it to work! We the people are being screwed in so may ways with the support of the "system".

Think energy, Ethanol (costs more to produce it than it provides in energy), modern nukes dismissed (but it is a safe economic alternative - the only real utility grade non-polluting energy source). Perpetuating coal (way more dangerous than nukes - air pollution, mining, ecological disasters, global warming), oil (because it makes a lot of money for some), subsidies for stupid higher cost "renewable energy".

Everything just adds to the cost of living for citizens.

So there shouldn't be a penalty for ignoring the law? You compare it to a parking ticket, i've never seen a parking ticket that was equal to the cost of just paying to park. It is an absurd notion and would actively encourage people to break the law. You break the law and worst case you are in the exact spot as if you'd the legal thing, best case you get it for free.

That doesn't mean I believe $150,000 per infringement is fair. But for there to be no penalty is absurd.

Quote:

our economic system is seriously rewarding money extraction from the public with no cost of goods. in other times this would simply be labeled as stealing.

When is this time you are talking about? The first known legal copyright protection was created in Venice in the year of 1486. The colloquial expression of " stealing an idea" goes back further than that.

Though I think it has been extended too far our founding fathers recognized the importance of intellectual property. It just drives me up the wall when I hear, "our founding fathers never intended 'x'.'" There were a lot of founding fathers, with many different ideas what they all ultimately agreed on was the creation of a living document because they knew that laws need to adapt over time. But people love to ignore that aspect of the founders' belief when they go ranting about "what the founders intended should be applied exactly as written to modern society!"